Why would anyone take up with atheism in a combative posture?

[Silentknight]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

It was fun for a while, but now it feels like that Simpsons bit in which Bart writes "INSERT BRAIN HERE" on the back of Homer's head and then Homer starts spinning around on the floor trying to read the back of his own head. At first everyone laughs. Then the laughter fades and everyone gets uncomfortable as he continues to spin around and around and around.

Unfortunately, Yrreg doesn't seem capable of reading something that's been written right in front of his face, let alone the back of his head. Examples include people's explicitly stated reasons for becoming atheists, where atheists get their morals from and what those morals are, the definition of evidence, and pretty much every rational counterpoint to the strawmen he's been posting. (Of course, I guess this means he'll never be able to read the unflattering limerick about bonobos I just wrote on the back of his head while he wasn't looking.)

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

... and Radrook.

With a touch of Stone Island.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

I'd pay to see yrreg, plumjam, DOC, Malerin and JEROME in the same thread.

You'd be disappointed. There is something similar to "honor among thieves" when it comes to holders of woo beliefs. They may attack each other like crazy when in their own little atheist-forbidding forums, but out in public, they pretty much ignore each other and go on their separate rants. Same is true in CT forums. Two troofers may have theories which directly contradict (like one will say there were no planes while another will say the planes were robot-piloted) yet rarely will one come out here at JREF, and challenge the other. Instead, they join forces to attack the debunkers.

I guess it's like people defend their own family, even if some of them are a little... well... funny.

[yrreg]

Haha, gotcha!

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Quote by Third Eye Open:
Yrreg, what is your purpose in this thread? Do you have one?

Same purpose as all his other threads.

He is a troll. That, or he's spent too much time in the CT forums as a conspiracy nutter. I honestly can't tell - his CT-ish ways are pretty obvious, but then again, seeing them in R&P is pretty novel, at least to me.

I have never sent any post to the CT (Conspiracy Theories board), but now that you erroneously alleged so, I looked it up and to my self-delight erh vanity, noticed that I am being cited there.



Yrreg

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Haha, gotcha!

Eight? I meant six.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by yrreg

I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me!

Because?

And why no prohibition against slavery? Why no rules against rape. What about beating one's spouse? Why no rules regarding child abuse? What about forgiveness? Why does the bible say it's ok to kill witches and adulterers? Why did Moses order the slaughter of the Amalekites if god doesn't want people to kill?

What good is the Ten Commandments given that there are so many loopholes in the bible to break those laws?

Can't we do better? Hell, don't we do better? I don't need the Ten Commandments to know that murder is wrong.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by yrreg

I do have my own answer to the question What is evidence, but I am trying to find out how people here understand evidence, specifically what it is. [...]
Okay, now just tell me what is evidence; PixyMisa says it is data that is independent, objective, testable pointing to a conclusion -- pretty good, but still not good enough for men in the street with a critical attitude.
Yrreg

I reckon what can be called evidence is pretty broad. It could be empirical, anecdotal, from authority, from tradition, or even gut feeling. What is important is how that evidence is verified and weighted. As demonstrated by its track record, the scientific method is the best way to do this.
That’s good enough for this man in the street with a critical attitude. I think in this game it’s traditional to show “yours” after we have shown “ours” so let’s hear your opinion Yrreg.

[yrreg]

I will put up a thread on what is evidence.

In the meantime, if you have any idea of what is evidence, please give it here, with your name first.

Remember, first tell readers what is evidence then what it is good for.

I will give you a hint.

When you are asked what is an orange, first you say what it is, a fruit, then continue to give the characteristics of this fruit, and next also how it is useful to man.

So, to the question what is evidence, tell the asker what it is first, then it's characteristics, and next what is it useful to man for.


So far, only PixyMisa has followed this procedure to answer the question what is evidence.

If you would be better than PixyMisa who gives the idea of what is evidence thus:

It is data that is independent, objective, testable that points to a conclusion.

You have to ask yourself in turn how can the evidence alleged to point to a conclusion endow the conclusion with the note of certainty?


That is how you are going do better than PixyMisa.


Yrreg

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Posted by yrreg

I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me!

Because?

And why no prohibition against slavery? Why no rules against rape. What about beating one's spouse? Why no rules regarding child abuse? What about forgiveness? Why does the bible say it's ok to kill witches and adulterers? Why did Moses order the slaughter of the Amalekites if god doesn't want people to kill?

What good is the Ten Commandments given that there are so many loopholes in the bible to break those laws?

Can't we do better? Hell, don't we do better? I don't need the Ten Commandments to know that murder is wrong.

Haha, gotcha!

Instead of believing in God you complain against what you think are His misdeeds, and also the misdeeds of His believers.

Okay, very good, since you are into citing the misdeeds of God and the misdeeds of His believers, and you claim to be scientifically grounded...

Suppose now you do a complete enumeration of God's good deeds and also the good deeds of His believers.


Then you can reach a scientific balance sheet of God's socalled misdeeds and God's good deeds, and also those of His followers from the beginning of man's conscious intelligence and freedom.

That should keep you busy and thus hopefully come to the ultimate certainty that God exists, if you would be open to your reason and intelligence, instead of whining about the supposed misdeeds of God and those of His believers.

That again is an instance of abusing logic to cater to your psychology of self-convenience.


You bring up the socalled misdeeds of God in order to justify your attachment to your conveniences whatever.

What are those conveniences? Self-pity, timidity, not acting the man, lack of self-perseverance in fidelity to the good, noble and righteous and just, resulting in a heart and mind of whining.

Men in the street see immediately in every atheist a crybaby plagued by self-diffidence.


Yrreg

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

He is a troll.

I've tried to explain this to him before: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...36#post1848736

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Can't we do better? Hell, don't we do better? I don't need the Ten Commandments to know that murder is wrong.

We can demonstrably do at least as well: those "God-given laws" were made up by humans.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Tricky

You'd be disappointed. There is something similar to "honor among thieves" when it comes to holders of woo beliefs. They may attack each other like crazy when in their own little atheist-forbidding forums, but out in public, they pretty much ignore each other and go on their separate rants. Same is true in CT forums. Two troofers may have theories which directly contradict (like one will say there were no planes while another will say the planes were robot-piloted) yet rarely will one come out here at JREF, and challenge the other. Instead, they join forces to attack the debunkers.

I guess it's like people defend their own family, even if some of them are a little... well... funny.

Same with alt-med types: a couple of hundred years ago when orthodox medicine was mostly useless, quacks spent a lot of time attacking each other as potential competitors (see Roy Porter's book, Quacks: Fakers & Charlatans in Medicine). These days, faced with a mutual enemy that is actually effective, they tend not to criticise each other.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Mojo

I've tried to explain this to him before: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...36#post1848736

It bears repeating here:

Originally Posted by Mojo

A troll is someone who is deliberately contrary and who posts in order to stir up a reaction. Typical behaviour includes, but is not limited to, repeatedly utilising the same logical fallacies, even after they have been pointed out, starting multiple threads making substantially the same points, repeatedly asking the same questions after they have been addressed, unusually formatted posts, a pretence at politeness as a veneer over insults, and evasion of questions asked by others.

Trolls can occasionally be annoying, especially if they enter threads in order to derail them. Once identified, however, they become a joke.

It is also worth noting that you posted that over 2 years ago, and yrreg hasn't learnt a thing since, it would appear.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by yrreg

That should keep you busy and thus hopefully come to the ultimate certainty that God exists, if you would be open to your reason and intelligence, instead of whining about the supposed misdeeds of God and those of His believers.

That again is an instance of abusing logic to cater to your psychology of self-convenience.

Yrreg, I know you're currently asking other people for a definition of evidence. Maybe you could supply a definition of logic? Because you keep using the word, but not in any context that I recognise.

[Elizabeth I]

Quote:

Okay, very good, since you are into citing the misdeeds of God and the misdeeds of His believers, and you claim to be scientifically grounded...

Suppose now you do a complete enumeration of God's good deeds and also the good deeds of His believers.

Then you can reach a scientific balance sheet of God's socalled misdeeds and God's good deeds, and also those of His followers from the beginning of man's conscious intelligence and freedom.

That should keep you busy and thus hopefully come to the ultimate certainty that God exists, if you would be open to your reason and intelligence, instead of whining about the supposed misdeeds of God and those of His believers.

Won't work. If one posits the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity, then further posits that the Bible is its inerrant word, one then MUST explain the multiple abuses, abominations and cruelties encouraged, ordered and/or perpetrated by the putative omnipotent omnibenevolence, as described in its own literal, inerrant history.

Quote:

Men in the street see immediately in every atheist a crybaby plagued by self-diffidence.

Oh, look. Now he's a mind-reader.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by yrreg

You bring up the socalled misdeeds of God in order to justify your attachment to your conveniences whatever.

What are those conveniences? Self-pity, timidity, not acting the man, lack of self-perseverance in fidelity to the good, noble and righteous and just, resulting in a heart and mind of whining.

Far better, I suppose, to hide behind your Big Brother in the sky. God forbid you should have to take any responsibility yourself.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Suppose now you do a complete enumeration of God's good deeds and also the good deeds of His believers.

When you kill children I think that pretty much does it. I don't need to do a balance sheet on BTK to know that he is an evil prick.

Quote:

You bring up the socalled misdeeds of God in order to justify your attachment to your conveniences whatever.

Actually, I asked you some questions. Care to answer them?

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

Suppose now you do a complete enumeration of God's good deeds and also the good deeds of His believers.

If God and the Isrealites did half of what they brag about in the Old Testament, I'm not interested in His good deeds, any more than I want to hear of those of Mao's Red Guard, the Red Khmer, or the men involved in Hitler's Holocaust.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

It bears repeating here:

Posted by Mojo
A troll is someone who is deliberately contrary and who posts in order to stir up a reaction. Typical behaviour includes, but is not limited to, repeatedly utilising the same logical fallacies, even after they have been pointed out, starting multiple threads making substantially the same points, repeatedly asking the same questions after they have been addressed, unusually formatted posts, a pretence at politeness as a veneer over insults, and evasion of questions asked by others.

Trolls can occasionally be annoying, especially if they enter threads in order to derail them. Once identified, however, they become a joke.

It is also worth noting that you posted that over 2 years ago, and yrreg hasn't learnt a thing since, it would appear.

Haha, gotcha!

Examples of trolls are Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Myers, and all atheists who talk combatively.

In the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, it is prohibited very strictly to accuse or call anyone troll.

Why?

Because even though they be atheists they still have some residue of the capacity for reason and intelligence to realize that calling people troll would be like the pot calling the cauldron black.

But outside of the IIDB, atheist forums elsewhere don't appear to have come to that insight.*

And that goes to show that atheists cannot do self-introspection to come to the reality of their abuse of logic to cater to their psychology of self-conveniences.

See? this instance of calling someone troll when if they have self honesty they would intuit immediately by direct mental vision that they are even more trollish.




Yrreg

*Sad to say, but the IIDB people have this vice of banning their best most productive and brilliant members who strip naked their (atheists) fallacious abuse of reason and intelligence in the cause of atheism, by bringing up bump charges on a wholesale scale like "violating the agreement entered into on registration."

That is why more people with genuine insights are coming to this JREF forum, many leaving IIDB or having been most unfairly banned.

And you know what, talk about intolerance and totalitatorian and inhumanistic mindset of atheists, when they do wield power, with each banning they also add "forever".

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by yrreg

*Sad to say, but the IIDB people have this vice of banning their best most productive and brilliant members who strip naked their (atheists) fallacious abuse of reason and intelligence in the cause of atheism...

[calebprime]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Men in the street see immediately in every atheist a crybaby plagued by self-diffidence.


Yrreg

What's 'self-diffidence'?

I know what diffidence is.

No one speaks this way, except people who are using words that they don't ordinarily use and don't understand.

eta: ah, I see it's another 'd' word like decretorial.

and that it has some currency in inspirational literature, such as this:

SELF-DIFFIDENCE
BY: MADAME JEANNE GUYON

Source of love, and light of day,
Tear me from myself away;
Every view and thought of mine
Cast into the mould of thine;
Teach, O teach this faithless heart
A consistent constant part;
Or, if it must live to grow
More rebellious, break it now!

Is it thus that I requite
Grace and goodness infinite?
Every trace of every boon
Cancell'd and erased so soon!
Can I grieve thee, whom I love;
Thee, in whom I live and move?
If my sorrow touch thee still,
Save me from so great an ill!


etc.

[yrreg]

Haha, gotcha!

So, atheists delight in bringing up the socalled misdeeds of God in the Bible.

If you have any working brain, you should realize that you do believe in the God of the Bible.

Because just as the bad kids at home who do not collaborate with their father to help in the household will bring up the socalled misdeeds of their father toward them, they thereby also profess that they do have a father in charge of them, only they don't want to keep in mind in their frontal brain lobe all the good deeds their father performs as a good provider and caregiver: seeing to food for every meal at home and snacks in the fridge, getting them to doctors, paying for their schooling, giving them money for clothings, pocket cash, arranging for their holidays, and going to the police precinct to bail them out when they get in trouble.

Do you see your abuse of logic, bringing up the socalled misdeeds of God in the Bible to justify your psychology of self-conveniences, and not bringing to the frontal lobe of your brain the good deeds of God in the Bible?

Of course not, because you have raised up hurdles to your hearts and installed blinders to your mind.

Haha, gotcha!

You are like those do good positive atheists who deny God but want to show people they are ethical in observing all the goodness of Christian Americans.

And ask them where they get all those parameters of goodness they want to continue to keep intact notwithstanding denying God's authorship of all goodness?

They answer with a sheepish confused apologetic grin, chance, and thus undo all their good will to demonstrate before society that they are not bent on immorality for denying God's authorship of all goodness.

Talk about rational consistency and guiltless masturbation but neglecting Occam's razor.

Haha, gotcha!


By the way, have you evidence devotees done your homework to see whether in the otherwise impressive answer by PixyMisa to the question what is evidence, namely:

Evidence is independent, objective, testable data pointing to a conclusion,

have you done your homework to look into the inconvenient aspect of certainty or certitude, whether it is an indispensable part of any answer to the question what is evidence?


You guys can't think anything on your own, but you depend on your trolls: Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, Dennett, Harris, who give you half facts and fact principles and half what else but half truths, and you are so happy thinking you have all the logical assurance to continue to disregard God and thus go about in pursuit of your psychology of self-conveniences.



Yrreg

[Foster Zygote]

Isn't it about time for one of the mods to aim the secret sabotage ray at Yrreg's computer?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Haha, gotcha!

My kids grew out of that when they were about 12.

Quote:

So, atheists delight in bringing up the socalled misdeeds of God in the Bible.

If you have any working brain, you should realize that you do believe in the God of the Bible.

Um, no, I don't.

Quote:

Do you see your abuse of logic, bringing up the socalled misdeeds of God in the Bible to justify your psychology of self-conveniences, and not bringing to the frontal lobe of your brain the good deeds of God in the Bible?

You're the only one alleging this 'psychology of self-conveniences', despite many people telling you otherwise.

Anyway, are you saying those misdeeds are not in the bible?

Quote:

Talk about rational consistency and guiltless masturbation but neglecting Occam's razor.

Why should one feel guilty about masturbating?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Isn't it about time for one of the mods to aim the secret sabotage ray at Yrreg's computer?

What, instead of at his brain?

[yrreg]

If you guys want to deny God's existence, don't bring in the Bible.

Why? Because you cannot cite the Bible to disprove something and disregard the Bible when it more certainly proves the opposite.

Unless you have some very esoteric kind of rational consistency or dissonant cognitive consonance.

But worst of all, citing the Bible already willy-nilly makes you Bible believers.

This is what you atheists should do instead to give credence to your being smart kids:

Take up mastery of Biblical higher criticism and lower criticism, Biblical hermeneutics, Biblical exegesis, paleontology of the Jews from Abraham to Jesus, ancient Biblical languages and literature, and all kinds of disciplines of scientific validity connected with the Bible.

Until then, whereof you know nothing thereof you must keep quiet.

Stick to science and God as the author of science, okay?


But you should genuinely master true non-selective science, the solid science that is open-ended, not the science of pseudo scientists and peddlers of evolution socalled theory, where they keep harping that evolution is supported by evidence but can't define evidence as to answer the question about certainty.

Also stick to philosophy, try the perennial philosophy which no one can disregard and still live in an inside sane world within himself -- though the world outside be ruled by atheists as during the cold war era when half of mankind were tyrannized by atheists, and during the briefly gory French revolution when the guillotine was overly exploited by atheists to chop of the heads of countless people for being true to God -- and since the French revolution atheists each of them thought themselves to be God, they also ended up chopping each other's heads off, acting as God-almighty, which later also in Soviet Communist Russia happened again with Stalin and colleagues.



Yrreg

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

That pretty much sums up the entire thread, yes.

Quote:

My kids grew out of that when they were about 12.

Your kids were not trolls. yrreg is a troll, and thus operates much like a sonar - he sends out 'pings' of idiocy and sees which pings are returned. Whenever a ping is returned, he sends more pings in that direction. Apparently, he's figured out that there's a big fat German u-boat lurking in the direction of 'Haha, gotcha!', and that many more pings and depth charges in this direction are warranted.

The only way to get him to shut up would be for everyone to Run Silent, Run Deep - go to 200 meters, run your engines at low power, be quiet, and ignore him. If the HMS yrreg gets no more return pings, she will give up and go probe some other region of the Internet Seas.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by yrreg

paleontology of the Jews from Abraham to Jesus,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology

I do not think that word means what he thinks it means.
I think there are many, many words that do not mean what he thinks they mean.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by yrreg

If you guys want to deny God's existence, don't bring in the Bible.

Sorry, that won't fly.

Thou shalt not kill. --Deuteronomy 5:16

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones. --Numbers 31:17

Quote:

Why? Because you cannot cite the Bible to disprove something and disregard the Bible when it more certainly proves the opposite.

The Bible is chock full of contradictions and nonsense. It's demonstrably a poor source for morality and truth. Since it is the basis of your belief system it is easy to use it to show that your belief system is incoherent and based on bronze age myth.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Haha, gotcha!

Four.

Quote:

Examples of trolls are Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Myers, and all atheists who talk combatively.

No.

Quote:

In the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, it is prohibited very strictly to accuse or call anyone troll.

This is not IIDB.

Quote:

Why?

Because even though they be atheists they still have some residue of the capacity for reason and intelligence to realize that calling people troll would be like the pot calling the cauldron black.

Yep, you are a troll alright.

Quote:

And that goes to show that atheists cannot do self-introspection to come to the reality of their abuse of logic to cater to their psychology of self-conveniences.

What abuse of logic? Provide detailed examples.

What "psychology of convenience"? Again, be specific.

Quote:

See? this instance of calling someone troll when if they have self honesty they would intuit immediately by direct mental vision that they are even more trollish.

Right.

Which is why we don't do that.

Quote:

*Sad to say, but the IIDB people have this vice of banning their best most productive and brilliant members who strip naked their (atheists) fallacious abuse of reason and intelligence in the cause of atheism, by bringing up bump charges on a wholesale scale like "violating the agreement entered into on registration."

You mean, the trolls.

Quote:

That is why more people with genuine insights are coming to this JREF forum, many leaving IIDB or having been most unfairly banned.

Could you please name one person with "genuine insights" who was "most unfairly banned" from IIDB?

Quote:

And you know what, talk about intolerance and totalitatorian and inhumanistic mindset of atheists, when they do wield power, with each banning they also add "forever".

It's their forum. You agreed to the rules when you joined.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by yrreg

If you guys want to deny God's existence, don't bring in the Bible.

The Bible is largely irrelevant to the question of God's existence. It is however relevant to questions of God's behaviour, if we posit his existence.

Quote:

Why? Because you cannot cite the Bible to disprove something and disregard the Bible when it more certainly proves the opposite.

We don't do that.

Quote:

Unless you have some very esoteric kind of rational consistency or dissonant cognitive consonance.

No.

Quote:

But worst of all, citing the Bible already willy-nilly makes you Bible believers.

No.

Quote:

This is what you atheists should do instead to give credence to your being smart kids:

Take up mastery of Biblical higher criticism and lower criticism, Biblical hermeneutics, Biblical exegesis, paleontology of the Jews from Abraham to Jesus, ancient Biblical languages and literature, and all kinds of disciplines of scientific validity connected with the Bible.

We have. Not all of us have studied all of these, of course, but between us we have it very well covered.

There is no reason at all to consider the Bible a factual account of anything much.

Quote:

Until then, whereof you know nothing thereof you must keep quiet.

What about whereof we know a great deal?

Quote:

Stick to science and God as the author of science, okay?

We don't believe in God.

Quote:

But you should genuinely master true non-selective science, the solid science that is open-ended, not the science of pseudo scientists and peddlers of evolution socalled theory, where they keep harping that evolution is supported by evidence but can't define evidence as to answer the question about certainty.

You really, really don't want to go there. Trust me on this.

Quote:

Also stick to philosophy, try the perennial philosophy which no one can disregard and still live in an inside sane world within himself -- though the world outside be ruled by atheists as during the cold war era when half of mankind were tyrannized by atheists, and during the briefly gory French revolution when the guillotine was overly exploited by atheists to chop of the heads of countless people for being true to God -- and since the French revolution atheists each of them thought themselves to be God, they also ended up chopping each other's heads off, acting as God-almighty, which later also in Soviet Communist Russia happened again with Stalin and colleagues.

No.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

And you know what, talk about intolerance and totalitatorian and inhumanistic mindset of atheists, when they do wield power, with each banning they also add "forever".

The JREF forums ban you only if you break the rules. Godtube will ban you, with the word "forever", just for speaking your mind.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by yrreg

If you guys want to deny God's existence, don't bring in the Bible.

Why? Because you cannot cite the Bible to disprove something and disregard the Bible when it more certainly proves the opposite.

Unless you have some very esoteric kind of rational consistency or dissonant cognitive consonance.

But worst of all, citing the Bible already willy-nilly makes you Bible believers.

This is what you atheists should do instead to give credence to your being smart kids:

Take up mastery of Biblical higher criticism and lower criticism, Biblical hermeneutics, Biblical exegesis, paleontology of the Jews from Abraham to Jesus, ancient Biblical languages and literature, and all kinds of disciplines of scientific validity connected with the Bible.

Until then, whereof you know nothing thereof you must keep quiet.

So, do you follow AL or YHVH, which is god and which is just a fraction of god? Do you know the difference?

Quote:

Stick to science and God as the author of science, okay?


But you should genuinely master true non-selective science, the solid science that is open-ended, not the science of pseudo scientists and peddlers of evolution socalled theory, where they keep harping that evolution is supported by evidence but can't define evidence as to answer the question about certainty.

Also stick to philosophy, try the perennial philosophy which no one can disregard and still live in an inside sane world within himself -- though the world outside be ruled by atheists as during the cold war era when half of mankind were tyrannized by atheists, and during the briefly gory French revolution when the guillotine was overly exploited by atheists to chop of the heads of countless people for being true to God -- and since the French revolution atheists each of them thought themselves to be God, they also ended up chopping each other's heads off, acting as God-almighty, which later also in Soviet Communist Russia happened again with Stalin and colleagues.



Yrreg

Yrreg, what happened to you?

The tone of your posts has changed considerably, is everything okay in your life?

I ask because your tone has changed a great deal, your seem to have replaced your humor with zealotry.

Are doing allright man?

I hope so.

Best wishes to you and yours.

[sleepy_lioness]

I'm an ex-Christian atheist. I was brought up in Sunday School, daughter of a Baptist Minister, had a 'believer's baptism' at age 14, thought it was my primary purpose in life to convert all my schoolmates and teachers to Christianity, etc.

Then when I was 17 I woke up one morning an atheist. Up til then I'd always had a nice fuzzy feeling that God existed and listened to me. One morning I woke up and he'd gone. No matter how hard I tried, I simply couldn't believe. Not that I didn't want to - I couldn't. This was very hard for me and I was very distressed for quite a long while. But eventually I came to see that God didn't exist and that was OK.

Now I lead a rather boring and moral life - trust me, you'd find nothing to object to in my behaviour, and I have no weird sexual kinks or anything like that - and I'm still an atheist, out of necessity. I would be lying if I said I believed in God, just as I would be lying if I said I didn't believe in, say, the existence of my best friend Kerstin. No matter how hard I might try I can't believe either that God exists, or that Kerstin doesn't.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Atheism is a lack of belief in god. It doesn't necessarily have any more to do with opposition to the 10 commandments than it does with opposition to the Kumulipo.

Why are atheists taking out ads on buses to advertise their lack of belief? That sounds more than a simple passive lack of belief in God.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by DOC

Why are atheists taking out ads on buses to advertise their lack of belief? That sounds more than a simple passive lack of belief in God.

Quite right. You've almost discovered the difference between passivity as a descriptor of an argument and passivity as a descriptor of a person.

[calebprime]

Originally Posted by sleepy_lioness

...

Now I lead a rather boring and moral life - trust me, you'd find nothing to object to in my behaviour, and I have no weird sexual kinks or anything like that ...

This sounds like a cry for help.

[Silentknight]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

If God and the Isrealites did half of what they brag about in the Old Testament, I'm not interested in His good deeds, any more than I want to hear of those of Mao's Red Guard, the Red Khmer, or the men involved in Hitler's Holocaust.

The interesting thing about that is that very few of the atrocities or executions described in the Bible actually happened. For example, take the rapacious looting destruction of the Canaanites. Historical and archaeological evidence shows that the Canaanites never fell to military conquest, rather the civilization simply sputtered out and died. The Israelites were an offshoot of the original Canaanite tribe that crawled away from the collapse. Because they wanted to separate themselves from their Canaanite roots as much as possible in order to distinguish themselves as an independent people, the Israelites did the only logical thing possible. They invented a story about destroying the Canaanites.

Similarly, the brutal executions described in the Bible very rarely happened. The laws of Deuteronomy were written by the priesthood in a time following successive conquests by the Assyrians and then the Babylonians, which was when the Israelites were taken in chains as slaves to Babylon. They had no state or borders of their own, let alone political power, therefore it's hardly conceivable that they could have executed anyone the way they frequently warned would happen. Additionally, the courts required an overwhelming amount of evidence for a person's guilt, including at least two eyewitnesses, before he was put to death.

A people who have been brutalized, conquered, and enslaved throughout much of their history were likely not the ones inflicting atrocities on other tribes. Why did they talk about it so often then? Put yourself in their shoes. They would have been bitter and resentful towards their captives, but with no way of taking action, the most they could do was express their vengeful sentiments in writing. The Israelites sure talked tough, but they rarely acted it.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

The interesting thing about that is that very few of the atrocities or executions described in the Bible actually happened.

I actually suspected as much. Thanks for elaborating.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by DOC

Why are atheists taking out ads on buses to advertise their lack of belief?

Why don't you ask those who did so?